News

Obama administration sends $3.1 million more to Planned Parenthood

Leave a comment

Abortion is big business in the United States, and there’s no bigger player than Planned Parenthood. Not only do they get paid for performing abortions, but they also get taxpayer money from the government.

Take a look at the latest news about those subsidies:

After reaching an agreement to send more than $1 million over three years to a Planned Parenthood in Tennessee, the Obama administration has awarded $3.1 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates in New Jersey.

The grant announcement was made Tuesday by Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez, (D-NJ), two pro-abortion Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are longtime allies of Planned Parenthood. The funding comes through the Department of Health and Human Services to Planned Parenthood and other agencies.

[…]The new funding brings the New Jersey Family Planning League’s total federal funding this year to nearly $6.3 million. The NJFPL works with Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan New Jersey, Planned Parenthood of Central and Greater Northern New Jersey, Hoboken Family Planning, and Women’s Health and Counseling Center in Somerville to fund 25 locations.

[…]Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life, also criticized the decision.

“Last year, a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Perth Amboy, New Jersey was caught on camera showing a willingness to aid and abet sex traffickers of young women,” Tasy said. “President Obama is clearly more concerned with protecting Planned Parenthood’s bottom line so they can continue to support his re-election campaign at the taxpayer’s expense than protecting women and girls from the violence of sex trafficking and abortion.”

Planned Parenthood got $363 million dollars from the federal government in 2010.

Planned Parenthood has a very close working relationship with the Obama administration – they even boast about it:

The Planned Parenthood abortion business has enjoyed a cozy relationship with President Barack Obama and his administration. Planned Parenthood has received millions in taxpayer funds, thanks to Obama, and its president has been a frequent visitor to the White House.

Now, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is admitting just how close the relationship has been.

“I’ve been working with this administration for the last three years on getting women better health care access in a whole host of ways,” Richards says in a new interview with National Journal. Interestingly, the web site cuts off the rest of what Richards says before quoting her as saying Obamacare and its abortion funding components “is the single most important opportunity to expand women’s health care access in this country that we will ever see.”

What about the Republicans? Are they pro-abortion? Well, according to Dr. Michael New, 2012 had the second-highest number of pro-life laws passed at the state level.

Excerpt:

The Guttmacher Institute recently released a report which found that states enacted 39 abortion restrictions in 2012. This means that 2012 was the second-most productive year in terms of the number of pro-life bills that were passed. The only year that was more productive was 2011, which saw the enactment of 80 pieces of pro-life legislation.

[…]Three states, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana, have passed versions of “Pain Capable Abortion Protection Act,” which bans abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, when there is medical evidence that the unborn can feel pain. Utah became the first state to enact a 72-hour waiting period before having an abortion. Arizona and South Dakota strengthened their informed-consent laws by requiring counseling on the negative mental-health consequences of abortion.

Mississippi’s law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital has received plenty of attention due to the fact that it may result in the closure of Mississippi’s lone abortion clinic. However, similar laws were signed this year in both Arizona and Tennessee. Some have speculated that the Tennessee law, which took effect July 1, may result in the closure of both abortion clinics in Knoxville.

When Republicans make substantial gains in state legislatures, there typically is a short-term increase in the amount of pro-life legislation that is enacted. However, the Republican gains in 2010 have resulted in considerably more pro-life legislation than the Republican gains in 1994.

You’ll remember that 2011 was the first year following the surge in elected Republicans because of the Tea Party.

Related posts on Planned Parenthood

Polemics

Why does God let people suffer? Why is there so much evil in the world?

5 Comments

I just wanted to draw your attention to this 4 page essay by Joe Manzari, which is the best darn summary of the state of the art on the problems of evil and suffering I have seen. The problem of evil is an objection to the existence of God based on the presence of evil or suffering in the world. The arguments basically infer that if God is all-good and all-powerful, then there should not be any evil or suffering.

There are two kinds of problem of evil.

The Logical/Deductive Problem of Evil:

The first kind is called “the deductive problem of evil” or “the logical problem of evil”. An exampel of evil would be Saddam Hussein murdering some journalist who told the truth about him. This version of the problem of evil tries to introduce a logical contradiction between the attributes of God and the presence of evil, like this:

(1) God exists.
(2) God is omnipotent.
(3) God is omniscient.
(4) God is omni-benevolent.
(5) Evil exists.
(6) A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.
(7) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

In order to avoid a contradiction, we need to explain how there could still be evil, since the conclusion of this argument is that there should not be any evil!So how are we going to get out of this mess? The solution is to attack premises 6 and 7.

Premise 6 is false because in order to eliminate human evil, you would have to eliminate free will. But eliminating free will is worse than allowing it, because good things like love are impossible without free will.

It is in response to this proposition that the Free Will Theodicy of G. W. Leibniz applies. God, valuing man’s freedom, decided to provide him with a will that was free to choose good over evil, rather than constraining his will, allowing him to choose only good.

Premise 7 is false because there are limits on what an omnipotent being can do. God cannot perform contradictory things, because contradictory things are impossible. God cannot make a married bachelor. Similarly, God cannot force free creatures to do his will.

In the same manner that God cannot create a square circle, he cannot make someone freely choose to do something. Thus, if God grants people genuine freedom, then it is impossible for him to determine what they will do. All that God can do is create the circumstances in which a person can make free choices and then stand back and let them make the choices.

One last point. In order to solve the problem of natural evil for this argument, you can point out that free will requires predictable and regular natural laws in order to make free will meaningful. Natural laws mean that individuals can predict what will happen when they act, allowing for moral responsibility. More on that next time.

Inductive/Probabilistic Problem of Evil

There is a second version of the problem of evil, though, which is more dangerous than the first. This is the one you see being argued in debates, whereas the first version is not used because it has been defused as seen above. Here is the second one:

(1) If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

This argument tries to argue that while God may have some reason for allowing free will, there are other evils in the world that are not the result of human action that God has no reason for permitting. Theists usually like to argue that God has morally-sufficient reasons for allowing some evil in the world, in order for the character of humans to develop through suffering and endurance. But what about gratuitous evil, which doesn’t have any point?

Consider the case of a fawn running in the forest, who falls and breaks his leg. Ouch! Then a forest fire starts and the poor fawn suffocates to death in the smoke. Why would God allow this poor small animal suffer like that? And notice that there is no morally sufficient reason for allowing it, because no human knows about this and so no human’s character or relationship with God is impacted by it.

The solution to this problem is to deny premise 2. (You can also deny 1 if you want). The problem with premise 2 is that the atheist is claiming to know that some instance of evil really is gratuitous. But since they are making the claim to know, they have to be able to show that God’s permission of that evil achieves nothing. But how do they know 2 is true?

The problem with 2 is that the atheist is not in a position to know that the permission of some evil X really doesn’t achieve anything. This is because the atheist cannot look forward into the future, or see into other places, in order to know for certain that there is no morally sufficient reason for allowing God’s allowing evil X to occur. But since the atheist argues based on premise 2, he must be able to show that premise 2 is more probable than not.

Manzari’s article also argues why apparently gratuitous evil is less problematic for Christians in particular, because of certain Christian doctrines. He lists four doctrines that make the apparently gratuitous evil that we observe more compatible with an all-good, all-powerful God.

  1. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
    Some of the things that we experience may wreck our feelings of contentment, but we need to remember that God may be permitting those troubles in order to remind us not to get too comfortable with life on earth, and to think ahead to the after-life. And remember, even Jesus learned endurance through suffering. His suffering was not pointless and neither is ours.
  2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and God’s purposes.
    We humans seem to be on a dead run away from God, trying to keep our autonomy by knowing as little about him as possible. Part of knowing God is knowing what he designed us to do – to love him and to love others. And so, the less we know about God, the more we stray from his design for our lives.
  3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternity.
    Sometimes it seems as if our sufferings really are catastrophic, but when you realize that you are offered eternal life without any suffering after you die, the sufferings of this life are a lot less upsetting than they would be if this life was all we had.
  4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
    This one is the biggest for me. Knowing God and knowing his actual character by studying the historical Jesus is a wonderful counterbalance for all the problems and sufferings of this life. A little bit of historical study reveals that Jesus was not spared the worst kind of suffering in his life, making it is a lot easier for us to bear with whatever God allows us to face.

In section 3, Manzari shows how you can also argue against this version of the problem by supplying evidence for God, such as from the big bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of life, the origin of free will, the origin of the first living organism, the origin of the mind, the sudden emergence of phyla in the fossil record, molecular machines, irreducible complexity, the resurrection miracle, and the objective morality argument.

The argument goes like this:

(1) If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
(2) God exists.
(3) Therefore, gratuitous evil does not exist.

Just support 2 with some evidence, and you win, especially when they can’t support their claim to know that gratuitous evil exists.

The Argument for God from Evil

In the paper, Manzari actually makes an argument for God from evil. That’s right. Far from disproving God, the presence of evil (a departure from the way things out to be), actually affirms God’s existence. How?

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

That’s right. If evil exists in any sense such that it is not a personal or cultural preference, then objective morality exists. If objective morality exists, then there is an objective moral lawgiver. Game over. If the atheist backtracks and says that the existence of evil is just his opinion or his cultural preference, then this standard does not apply to God, and you win again. Game over again. More on this argument for God’s existence from evil here.

So, although the problems of evil look pretty tough, they are actually easy. The toughest part of evil and suffering is the emotional problem. I could tell you stories about what I’ve been through… but then, that’s why the arguments matter. You can hold your position under tremendous fire when you have the arguments and evidence to ground you.

For more on the problem of evil, listen to this lecture by Douglas Geivett, professor of philosophy at Biola University. Then you must listen to this debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (with summary by me). Another debate transcript is here, with William Lane Craig and Kai Nielsen. Here’s a book debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, published by Oxford University Press, 2004.

Polemics

Minimum wage: doing what feels good doesn’t produce good results

9 Comments
Government Spending Vs Jobs
Government Spending Vs Jobs

From Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

How amusing to watch Democrats wring their hands over what they can do to get businesses to create jobs, when one of the biggest job killers is the minimum wage they keep hiking.

Recall that it was Democrats who raised the federal wage floor a whopping $2.10 an hour in the middle of the recession. The record 41% increase has led to record unemployment among young people, especially black teens.

Congress started ratcheting up the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in mid-2007, arguing it would help abate poverty. But retailers looking to slash costs eliminated low-skilled, entry-level jobs rather than pay the mandated increases.

Now 1.5 million fewer teens are working. Last year’s unemployment rate for workers ages 16 to 19 shot up to 26% from 2007’s 15%.

As for black teens, their joblessness soared to a record 43% after the final raise to $7.25 took effect in mid-2009. It helped put more than half of young black men out of work — a first.

The president proposes cranking the minimum wage even higher to $9.50. Then he wants to raise it every year thereafter as a “living wage” indexed to inflation.

Yes, this is the problem that happens when you elect someone who knows nothing whatsoever about economics. And when I say nothing, I mean he is in disagreement with virtually all economists across the ideological spectrum.

Moderate economist Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University lists the policies that are accepted by virtually all economists.

Here’s Greg’s list, together with the percentage of economists who agree:

  1. A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93%)
  2. Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)
  3. Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement. (90%)
  4. Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90%)
  5. The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries. (90%)
  6. The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies. (85%)
  7. Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises. (85%)
  8. If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)
  9. The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged. (85%)
  10. Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value. (84%)
  11. A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy. (83%)
  12. A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)
  13. The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a “negative income tax.” (79%)
  14. Effluent taxes and marketable pollution permits represent a better approach to pollution control than imposition of pollution ceilings. (78%)

From CNBC, we get this article showing that any increase in the minimum wage will raise the unemployment rate for young people.

Excerpt:

A quarter of teenagers were jobless in March, representing a surprising increase from February, even as the unemployment rate for the rest of the population decreased.

This figure may only get worse if budget-strapped states raise the minimum wage, and it could also be a sign of greater structural damage underlying our economy, analysts said.

The unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year olds jumped back up to 24.5 percent in March, up from 23.9 percent the prior month, according to the latest jobs data from the Labor Department.

[…]“Even when comprehending that teen employment is volatile in nature, the data that exists serves up some shock and awe,” said Brian Sozzi, a retail research analyst with Wall Street Strategies, in a note Wednesday. “If these (wage) increases do go through, the prospect for teen employment will remain grim as employers search for workers with advanced skills to fill positions.”

Twelve states, including Illinois and Pennsylvania, are considering a hike in the minimum wage. While this has been the subject of a long-running debate, many economists and analysts say raising this pay bar may cause more teen layoffs, even as it helps teens who manage to stay employed make more.

“Minimum wage increases over the past few years has definitely made it worse,” said Peter Boockvar, chief equities strategist at Miller Tabak. “In fact, there should be zero minimum wage for teenagers, or at most, something much less than the current rate.”

Teens typically are the first to be fired and the last to be hired back in a normal economic cycle, so this rate can be considered a kind of leading indicator of employment.

A new study shows that only 25% of teens will be able to find jobs this summer. And Obama thinks that this number is apparently too high. He wants to lower it by raising the price that must be paid by employers who would like to hire younger workers.

You can find out more about how raising the minimum wage increases unemployment from this comprehensive, 50-year, government study.

Excerpt:

Summary of Research on the Minimum Wage

* The minimum wage reduces employment.

Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).

* The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.

Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

* The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.

Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

* The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks.

Bauer (1959).

* The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.

Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

* The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.

Krumm (1981).

* The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.

Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

* The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.

Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

* The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.Meyer and Wise (1983b).

* The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

* The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).

* The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.Trapani and Moroney (1981).

* The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).

* The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.

Stigler (1946).

* The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty.

Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).

* The minimum wage helps unions.Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).

* The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates.Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (1981).

* The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.

Beranek (1982).

* Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.

Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).

* The minimum wage has reduced employment in foreign countries.Canada: Forrest (1982); Chile: Corbo (1981); Costa Rica: Gregory (1981); France: Rosa (1981).

This is why it is important for voters to understand economics. When you raise the price of labor, fewer employers will purchase labor. Supply and demand.